SUJATHA CHRISTIANA Vs. C THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. A. No. 778 of 1996 is preferred against the order passed in I. D. O. P. No.36 of 89. C.M.A. No. 779 of 1996 is preferred against the order passed by the Learned District Judge in G.W.O.P. No. 45 of 1991. The respondent in the above O.Ps is the appellant in both the appeals. The respondent herein has filed I.D.O.P. No. 36 of 89 against the appellant herein, who is his wife.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is as fol-lows :- The petitioner and respondent are CSI christians and their marriage was solemnized on 29-12-1983 in Kanyakumari District. The petitioner is employed as a Assistant Professor in the Government Arts College, Musiri, Tiruchirapalli District. After the marriage, the petitioner and respondent spent some time at the petitioner's family name and thereafter, both went to Musiri on 23-1-1984 and lived their happily till 22-4-1984. At the commencement of the summar holidays in April 1984, the petitioner and the respondent returned to the petitioner's house and lived there till 30-5-1984. On 31-5-1984, the respondent left the petitioner's house and went to her parents house at Palappalam, about five kilometers away from the petitioner's house. The respondent was pregnant at that time. The respondent did not return to the petitioner's house, though she promised to go back after spending few days with her parents. The respondent's father is a widower. The petitioner unsuspecting the real cause of the respondent continued residing with her father used to visit her and had asked her to return to the petitioner's house. On 12-6-1984, the petitioner went back to Musiri and the respondent refused to go with him. On 29-11-1984, the respondent gave birth to a male child. No intimation was given to the petitioner even at the time of baptism of the child. The respondent accepted the job of a teacher in My Lady in Agasteeswaram Taluk in the month of June 1984 and this was not disclosed to the petitioner before he went back to Musiri on 12-6-1984. the respondent expressed her desire to work being a post-graduate herself and the petitioner had disclosed to the respondent about the dis-advantage and advantage of the respondent accepting the teacher's job in a private school. The bringing up of children, the possibility of petitioner's regular transfers, the near impossibility of respondent's getting a job in a Government School, the job in a private school making it necessary for the respondent to stay at a particular place for the rest of her period of service, the additional expense in maintaining two establishments and the psychological effect on the growing children all certain problems. In spite of these difficulties, the petitioner tried to get the respondent a job in Nayarasam Matriculation School at Palliyathur near Erode and nearer to Musiri in the month of May 1984. This was not to the liking of the respondent. When the petitioner was told that the respondent had taken up a job in a school in Kanyakumari District, the petitioner did not at the outset suspect that it was the outcome of a careful plan at the instance of the father of the respondent. The respondent expressed her intention to stay in Kanyakumari District and continued her services in one of the private schools in the district and the said decision was influenced by the father of the responeent. The petitioner pleaded her through letters and also in person to come and reside with him. But the said request was not accepted by the respondent. The petitioner made efforts to persuade the respondent to reside with the petitioner and to resume cohabitation. The friends and relatives and a Professor of Christian College, Nagercoil and the brother-in-law of the petitioner talked to the respondent and her father and requested her to live with the petitioner. But all the efforts ended in failure. The respondent has no right to break the marital house and deny consortium to the petitioner. The respondent is obliged in law to live with the petitioner as a lawful wedded wife. The respondent refused to return to the petitioner and live with him is condemnable morally and legally and therefore, the petitioner has filed this application for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent made unwarranted allegations against the petitioner and complained to the police that the petitioner has been insisting on dowry and caused a prosecution to be launched under the Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner and his brother. The petitioner was arrested by the police and he obtained bail from the Court. The petitioner issued notice dated 12-8-1988 to the respondent, for which a reply dated 5-9-1989 was received. The allegations in the reply notice are not true.

(3.) The case of the respondent is as follows :- It is true that the respondent was living with the petitioner from 23-1-1984 to 22-4-1984 at Musiri. During that period, the petitioner demanded Rs.50,000/- as additional dowry. The respondent was helpless and pleaded her inability to bring the amount. Therefore, the petitioner beat the respondent frequently for non-bringing of the amount. The relatives and well-wishers approached the petitioner and advised to stop all type of harassments. During the time of stay at the petitioner's house from 23-4-1984 to 31-5-1984, the petitioner locked the respondent in a room for two days without giving food. The respondent has not left voluntarily from her husband's house. On 31-5-1984, at about 7.00 p.m. the respondent was taken by the petitioner in a taxi and left her near to the respondent's parents house and informed the respondent that she would be taken back only if she brings Rupees 50,000/- from her father. From that day, the respondent is living with her father. The petitioner know the respondent's pregnancy and delivery of the child.Even after getting information, the petitioner has not turned up to see his child. Since the respondent passed P.G. Degree in Science and B.Ed. degree, she was called for P.G. Assistant according to seniority on temporary basis. This good news was informed through letters to the petitioner for his information. But the petitioner never sent any reply. Now the temporary post was made permanent and the respondent is working at CSI Higher Secondary School, James Town. The respondent sent mediators for re-union. But the petitioner informed the mediators that the respondent would be taken back if her father pays Rs.50,000/- as dowry. While the process of mediations were going, the petitioner issued notice for restitution of conjugal rights. On receipt of the notice, the respondent replied consenting to go back with the petitioner. But unfortunately the respondent received the unhappy news of the petitioner's demand for Rs.50,000/-. Thereafter, the respondent complained the matter to the police. The police registered a case under S.498-A, 406 IPC and under Ss.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Thus, the petitioner continuously gave harassment to the respondent. The cruel acts of the petitioner towards the respondent are unbearable and hence, the respondent is unable to live with the petitioner.